Introduction by Croakey: The rise of far-right populism in Australia and globally presents significant threats to health and wellbeing, especially for First Nations peoples and other groups whose rights are often in the frontline of fire.
Many in the Australian health sector have watched with alarm as the Trump Administration has attacked human rights and evidence-based policy, from climate change to vaccination and the integrity of research.
As support grows for populist politicians and movements in Australia, what can we learn from recent experiences in Trump’s America?
It’s a timely question as the rise of One Nation’s influence over public and policy debate is already affecting key public health policies, including self-determination for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and tobacco control.
Adjunct Associate Professor Lesley Russell, who has meticulously documented the Trump Administration’s assaults on science and health in The Health Wrap and elsewhere, investigates.
Lesley Russell writes:
In the United States, national and international organisations, universities, clinicians, scientists and researchers are actively pushing back against the Trump Administration’s policies through public comment campaigns, lawsuits, and mass protests in response to attempts to overhaul scientific funding.
Experts who have been summarily dismissed from their jobs and positions on advisory groups have also spoken out.
However, it’s fair to say that many have been far too ready to cooperate with the Trump’s executive orders, and others have been too slow to protest.
Fear of losing funding or employment or even status is a key factor – and is perhaps understandable. And frankly, people are just shocked at the speed and reach and viciousness of Trump’s attacks.
As an example of what happened in the early days, here is a story of my criticisms of the reaction of the American Society of Microbiology (ASM) to Trump’s edicts on diversity, equity and inclusion and the ASM’s response to this.
The ASM, which sponsored me as a Congressional Science Fellow in 1984-1985, is the oldest and largest life science membership organisation in the world, with some 30,000 members of diverse backgrounds, including researchers, educators, and health professionals. It’s a place where DEI is important.
Within days of Trump’s edicts in January 2025, the ASM had modified their website. I wrote to complain and got two separate responses:
“You may have noticed that some content has been temporarily made unavailable on our site while we review the information to ensure that it meets the requirements of the EOs. The intent was never to permanently remove any content from our website. Rather, this was a necessary action in order to conduct a legal review to ensure that ASM, as a federal grantee, is in compliance with its obligations under the recently-issued Executive Orders.”
The ASM also said: “We’ve heard the concerns raised about the recent review process on our website. We want to assure you that our intention was to ensure we were legally compliant, and never to take down material permanently. On the advice of our legal counsel, we moved quickly to protect our federally funded programs that support our work in conferences, training, and global health.”
Today I can’t tell what, if anything, has been returned to the website, but I am unable to find anything about supporting DEI, including in the ASM Policy Framework and the Public Policy and Advocacy Action Centre.
What universities are doing
While some universities like Columbia and Yale ultimately pursued voluntary settlements to protect ongoing research grants and end investigations, many others have continued to fight to preserve academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
These institutions have pushed back against the Trump Administration’s federal funding cuts, DEI bans, and ideological investigations through direct litigation. For example, Harvard has filed a series of lawsuits, some successful, some still ongoing. Twenty-four major colleges and universities filed legal briefs supporting Harvard’s suit to stop the weaponisation of federal funding.
And hundreds of college presidents and other officials have signed a letter protesting the “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” that higher education is facing under the Trump Administration.
“We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses,” stated the letter, released by the American Association of Colleges and Universities.
Over 180 institutions and large research consortia have banded together to establish mutual defence compacts, pooling legal counsel, governance experts, and public relations resources.
Fighting back
Organisations like the Union of Concerned Scientists have led campaigns to mobilise researchers.
These efforts are increasingly impactful. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposal for political oversight of research has garnered some 500,000 public comments that overwhelmingly reject the proposal. If the proposal is enacted, as expected, the fight will move to the courts, although experts fear this will not be easy.
But many researchers are not hanging around for the fight. Dozens of countries are trying to lure American scientists abroad – and it’s working. A Nature poll of US scientists last year found that three-quarters of respondents were thinking of moving abroad. This is an American brain drain that could define science for a generation.
The policies and budget cuts of the Trump Administration have forced many states to pick up the slack in health and healthcare.
So we are seeing the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services and local health departments doing the “boots-on-the-ground” work for the Cyclospora food contamination outbreak because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been slow to act and are now without much-needed expertise.
As Trump has pushed Republican-led states to pass an onslaught of abortion restrictions, some Democrat-controlled legislatures have gone in the opposite direction, working to codify protections and, in a few cases, even increase access.
It is encouraging to see political candidates are responding to voters’ concerns (healthcare costs are a top priority).
In the lead-up to the midterm elections in November, an increasing number of Democratic and Democratic Socialist candidates are supporting Medicare-for-All proposals, and protection and expansion of abortion rights are on the ballot in four states (all currently led by Republicans).
There is also a “Sick of It! Fix Health Care Now” campaign led by House Democrats and health healthcare advocates.
Community and professional groups and state coalitions are utilising the court system to address unlawful attempts to gut the ACA. To date the courts have blocked the “Marketplace Integrity and Affordability” healthcare rule on the basis that it would unlawfully impose new fees, weaken coverage standards, and create barriers that would make it harder for people to get and keep affordable health insurance.
One other bright note here is that Members of Congress of both parties have acted to reverse major reductions made by the Trump Administration to funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Public health diplomacy
The efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the Trump Administration to dismantle and undermine America’s federal public health system has not only led to preventable outbreaks of disease (measles, foodborne illnesses) but has deprived the international public health community of advice, guidance and data.
A recent policy brief from British and European researchers proposes a public health diplomacy that is bold, inclusive, and strategic in defending evidence, empowering diverse actors, and reforming institutions.
It puts forward nine ways to do this:
- Create diplomacy labs for crisis simulation
- Empower non-state actors like cities and NGOs
- Strengthen ethical communication and listening
- Protect health workers
- Build alternative accountability systems
- Reframe health as a diplomatic priority
- Decentralise and diversify funding
- Develop a new diplomacy curriculum
- Reinvent and defend multilateralism.
Tackling misinformation and disinformation
Research shows that right-wing populism is one of the strongest drivers of misinformation dissemination.
This is achieved by messaging that uses emotion over fact and capitalising on public distrust of institutions and experts, by using social media to amplify misleading content, and by scapegoating the mainstream media as “fake news” to delegitimise opposition.
Critics, fact-checkers, and mainstream public health organisations have repeatedly challenged the statements of Trump and Kennedy but both frame these accusations as media smears, claiming they are “speaking truth” and combating institutional corruption.
Lack of trust in science and scientific recommendations is a human rights issue. The UNESCO Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers establishes that scientific conduct must respect universal human rights standards, promoting science as a common good that requires open, democratic dialogue.
But the public cannot exercise their right to science unless scientific knowledge is disseminated so that they understand it.
Mainstream media too often feel it is necessary to report ‘the other side of the story’ and do so in ways that give credibility to belief, expertise, data and the ignoring or dismissal of data that is not warranted.
This is further aggravated by the algorithms of the digital environment which heavily reward contrarian “experts” by expanding their reach and status and, in some case, financial opportunities. These are incentives that traditional professional oversight frameworks are currently completely unequipped to counter.
Disinformation should now be seen and addressed as a primary determinant of health.
Show up for democracy
As outlined, the impact of right-wing populist rhetoric and actions from Trump and his Administration is widespread and multi-faceted and not always accurately reported as such.
Addressing this will be a long-term and difficult task. It is so much easier to destroy than to build. It will require both national and international efforts on a range of fronts because the ramifications of Trump’s populist ideologies are far-reaching and they have put down roots in other countries, including in Australia.
The Union of Concerned Scientists summarises the issues and the needed actions this way, under the heading ‘Democracy Depends on Science – So Scientists Need to Show Up for Democracy’:
“ .. control over scientific data has become an important lever of power. Authoritarians [and authoritarian populists] manipulate, censor, and cease collection of data to control the public narrative, suppress dissent, and advance propaganda in support of their self-serving policy goals. A functioning democracy, however, depends on the ability of its citizens to make informed decisions.
A shared commitment to knowledge and facts, produced independently from political interference, is critical to maintain democratic decision-making, sustain public trust in institutions, and enable society to make progress on the world’s biggest challenges, including climate change and public health.”
Australia is not immune from the exigencies imposed by the Trump Administration. And Australian news and social media is flooded daily with misinformation and right-wing, politically-charged content generated in America, much of it picked up and rehashed by local conservative voices.
The Union of Concerned Scientists plea must be heard and acted upon by Australian scientists, public health officials, clinicians, politicians and those in the community who care about improving our national health status, mitigating the impact of climate change, and ensuring national productivity and security.
This will require a significant investment in Australia’s ability to research, innovate and develop new evidence to inform policymaking, new prevention mechanisms and new treatments.
It is a concomitant requirement that every effort is made to ensure that the Australian public (everyone from the youngest child up) understands why science and evidence are important levers of power (as stated by the Union of Concerned Scientists, these are “critical to maintain democratic decision-making”), and why those who seek to undermine public trust in these levers have their own power agendas that are not in the national or international interests.
• Lesley Russell is Adjunct Associate Professor at the Leeder Centre for Health Policy, Economics and Data, University of Sydney, and contributes the regular column The Health Wrap, which can be read here. Follow her on Twitter for political news at @LRussellWolpe, and on BlueSKy for news on health policy and travel, at @lrussellwolpe.bsky.social.
See Croakey’s archive of articles on populism and health; the Trump Administration and health; and on misinformation and disinformation
Add Comment